October 1, 2007

I'm reading Clarence Thomas's memoir -- "My Grandfather's Son" -- and here's his description of taking a bath back in the 1950s when he lived with his grandfather (called "Daddy"):

He insisted that we bathe in what he called a "teaspoon" of water, using laundry detergent instead of soap. "Waste not, want not," he repeatedly warned us. We weren't allowed to use towels to dry ourselves, either, since Daddy thought washcloths were good enough to get us dry (as well as being easier to launder than towels). Whenever he thought we hadn't gotten ourselves clean enough, he finished the job himself, a terrifying experience that we did everything we could to avoid.

217 comments:

Sounds a lot like the stories my dad tells me of his own upbringing. Being such wasteful creatures of convenience that we are nowadays, we could use more stories like this, of extreme frugality and conservation. Ironically, it's refreshing. I'm sure the book is an enlightening one.

The interviews are interesting, too. I've always wanted to hear how those SC nominees feel after having their lives parsed and blasted by many hypocritical politicians serving as their critics. (John Roberts' really upset me in particular.) Though the grilling is necessary for their esteemed positions, I think it would leave me disillusioned with the position and what it takes to obtain it, and walking away. I think I want this book.

Jack Crabb: Grandfather, I have a white wife. Old Lodge Skins: You do? That's interesting. Does she cook and does she work hard. Jack Crabb: Yes, Grandfather. Old Lodge Skins: That surprises me. Does she show pleasant enthusiasm when you mount her? Jack Crabb: Well sure, Grandfather. Old Lodge Skins: That surprises me even more. I tried one of them once, but she didn't show any enthusiasm at all. (Little Big Man 1970)

Prof. Althouse, are you reading this for a review (like the Toobin book you clearly disliked, and I doubt would have finished but for the need to be fair in a review), or reading this for pleasure, and the opportunity to get to know a little better one of the Supremes?

Although I thought Thomas was treated most unfairly during his confirmation hearings, I thought his comparison of the events to a "high-tech lynching" was over the top.

That was then. But now the pattern is clear, and he was right.

Hillary Clinton doesn't really mean it when she decries "the politics of personal destruction," but that's an apt phrase anyway. Politicians, especially (but not exclusively) those on the left, like to pick a target, characterize him or her in politically advantageous ways, and then score points by denouncing and destroying them. The media generally assists them, when what they should be doing is playing truth detector. But that was a media from the past, a media determined to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." That philosophy is no longer practiced by the media.

XWL: I would have read and probably finished the Toobin book for the gossipy tidbits and taken it for what it's worth. I'm reading the Thomas book because he's important and it's therefore important. I want to be able to blog about it too. Turns out it's quite interesting and readable.

Juror #8: It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us. (12 Angry Men 1957)

As far as Justice Thomas and the assassination of MLK, he mentioned in his 60 Minutes interview that it was the event that drove him from the seminary, the Catholic church (which he returned to later in life), and radicalized him in a black power sort of way. He left the seminary because some of his fellow novitiates expressed delight that King was shot, and were hopeful he'd die of his wounds(he was studying to be a priest in 1968).

I'm noticing radio silence regarding this book from the left side of the blogosphere.

Given past pronouncements regarding Justice Thomas, the lack of a response is interesting.

Maybe they're just waiting for one of their leading lights (like Glenn Greenwald) to tell them what to think, then they'll fall in, in lock step as usual.

I suspect they'll eventually follow a Sen Harry Reid like (remember this statement?) line of thought and accuse Justice Thomas of not actually writing his own well written autobiography (who will be the first to say that Justice Scalia really wrote most of the book?).

Also, completely unrelated, but I saw this photo at Amy Alkon's blog, and figured that Prof. Althouse must have nightmares that look like that.

SMG asks: "The obvious question re 1968 is: How did Dr. King's assassination affect or influence this radicalism? Where was he at the time? How did he react?"

Justice Thomas answered that in one of the interviews. In 1968 he was in a seminary studying for the Catholic priesthood. When King was assassinated, he overheard other seminarians discussing the killing, in ways that King had it coming. Thomas says that he had been following the "black power" and civil rights movements, and was greatly influenced by them. Shortly after King's killing, Thomas left the seminary because he felt the Church was from opposing racial discrimination. Thomas says that the same incident led him to abandon his Catholic faith.

When he returned home, his grandfather threw him out of the house (at 18) because he thought Thomas had let him and his race down by quitting.

So the King killing had a life-changing impact on Thomas, albeit not of the sort one might have imagined before hearing these interviews.

Politicians, especially (but not exclusively) those on the left, like to pick a target, characterize him or her in politically advantageous ways, and then score points by denouncing and destroying them.

It is laughable to claim that politicians on the left are more likely than those on the right to "pick a target" and "characterize him or her in a politically advantageous way."

First, the assertion that "the Left" is more likely to do this than "the Right" has no basis in fact. (If it did, surely supporting evidence would be provided.) Rather, this hollow claim serves no purpose other than to feed a couple of the angry and irrational rightwingers who comment at Althouse.

Second, the assertion makes no logical sense. If a political advantage accrues from following the strategy you describe, why does "the Left" employ it more than "the Right?" Is the claim dependent on the notion that "the Right" is simply too stupid to understand and employ sound political strategy? Or does it imply, humorously, that the party of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater believes in politics with honor?

On the other hand, if the strategy described is a losing one, why does "the Left" stick with it? Do you imagine that politicians on the left aren't bright enough to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a political strategy and adapt accordingly?

Unfortunately, the claim is just more of the same partisan nonsense that fills the comment section of the Althouse blog.

Thomas described his grandfather as being a hard but not a harsh man. I thought that was interesting. He clearly was loved by his grandparents and knew that he was loved. That makes all the difference.

The washcloths were pretty harsh, however. My grandmother used a clothesline well into the 80's. Towels come out pretty stiff, which reminds me, Trooper, have you got a number for Edinburgh? My bottom needs reglazing.

"I'm still curious (guess I'll have to buy the book) as to what led him back from his radicalism."

He goes to Boston with a group of black radicals to participate in an antiwar rally, and it turns angry, ugly, and mindless. He becomes horrified by the rage and group action. He also reads Ayn Rand and realizes that the individualism preached by the leftists around him only goes so far because, as a black man, he's expected to believe certain things. He decides to figure out what he really thinks, to work on improving himself, and to go to law school.

And he's on armed forces radio?!? Waa? How'd you like to be hunkered down in Iraq or waking up to no legs in the hospital and hear the guy on the radio calling you names. "Thank for the morale boost, pill popper!"

I think its pretty cool for Alphaliberal to give an example of the left "pick a target, characterize him or her in politically advantageous ways, and then score points by denouncing and destroying them." The reason it works so well for the left is that the media doesnt point out the inaccuracies. I appreciate AL willing to make himself look like a fool by repeating the baseless charge. Don't forget the Oreilly is a racist one.

And before the dittoheads repeat the "it was only one soldier" line. He said "phony soldiers," way before he named one.

The "it was only one soldier" line is what anti-war lefties are claiming, Alpha. I would certainly never use it, since like the rest of the reality-based community I know that there are a lot of phony soldiers out there.

Quite incredible. First the Democrats accuse a real soldier of being a traitor, then you turn around and leap to defense of fraudulent non-soldiers who are undermining the war effort. I'd say I'm shocked, but why would I be? You pulled the same stunt back in the Winter Soldier era.

Alpha: Did you hear the radio broadcast or read the FULL transcript? Not just the cherry picked items? I doubt it. Rush made it quite clear that the phony soldiers are the likes of Jesse Macbeth and Marc Beauchamp. At no time in the broadcast did he ever say that real soldiers who were against the war were phony

The same smear tactics are being done to O'Reilly by Media Matters a tentacle of Move On. If it wasn't for the support of Juan Williams who was a participant in the radio broadcast they would be succeeding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhe00QSlBI

In response, Juan Williams has been called a Happy Negro on CNN. I guess that's what is acceptable if you are a black man who goes off of the reservation. Can you imagine the outcry if it were Imus, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh who said those words?

This is a dangerous tactic that the left is taking by targeting media figures for destruction, in a way reminiscent of McCarthy, because you disagree with them politically. The twisting of statements, taking things out of context and the complicity of the MSM to engineer the results of the next election with these disgusting tactics may backfire on them. With the advent of YouTube, bloggers these underhanded tactics will be exposed.

Thomas has been the victim of these maneuvers as well. Because he is a black man who can think for himself and doesn't toe the line and doesn't fit the stereotype of the perpetual black victim, he must be denigrated and destroyed.

I've given up reading most books by conservative authors. Most are simply categorized lists of left-leaning outrages since the last conservative book came out. They're great for pumping up your blood pressure and provide plenty of ammunition to launch your rants the next time you get together with like-minded friends.

Justice Thomas' book, though, might bring me out of the boycott. He is a fascinating person, who has accomplished more than most people living in this country ever dreamed of attempting. I'll add it to my Christmas list and see what happens.

I stood up in my in-law's living room and applauded Thomas when he said, "...as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas..." in response to the beating he took during his confirmation.

Drug addicts that get out of a war from a "hereditary anal cyst" forfeit all rights to judge who is or isn't a real soldier. As if the mulitude of shocking and/or rascist comments from Limbaugh and O'Reilly can all be cleared up with just a little context. With these 2, either edit the context, or don't reveal the context at all. Problem solved!

I'll do you one better than that, I was actually listening to Limbaugh on Wednesday, and I heard the whole thing as he said it. Not only did he say, 'phony soldiers' while describing soldiers who opposed the Iraq war and only later did he talk about McBeth, but note he also used the plural-- so if McBeth is the first, he was implying that he is not the only.

By now there are many, many soldiers on record who have come back from Iraq and been very critical of the war.

There are many who question what is to be gained by remaining in Iraq, and certainly at what cost to the United States (just to cite one example-- your personal share of the debt that has been run up in Iraq so far is over $1,600.) So they question not only the operation, but the value of continuing to fight this war.)

But some of the knee-jerks on the right choose to be intentionally blind and seek to discredit anyone who doesn't just want to shut up, sit down and wave a flag.

errr...I mean Scott Beauchamp a phony soldier who told lies about his Iraq service. There have been many others who are celebrated by the anti war left who have made up events to make themselves look good, to make the others in their units look bad..... does the name John Kerry ring a bell?

If Ann would be the balanced moderate she pretends to be, I'd post on this in her "Rush Limbaugh attacks troops, damages morale thread.

But Ann only criticizes the right when the moon is "blue".

Underlying the right wing's embrace of Limbaugh the addict's attacks on soldiers who disagree with the war is a penchant for the "Good German" model of soldiers and citizens slavishly obedient to strong authority figures.

That's not denying that there are plenty of genuine soldiers/airmen/sailors/Marines who disagree with this administration. My brother-in-law served two tours in Iraq and would lynch Rumsfeld if he could get away with it. He's no Jesse MacBeth though.

I was always wondering who'd be idiotic enough to believe admitted liar Brock's joke of a website.

Thanks for the answer.

And he's on armed forces radio?!? Waa? How'd you like to be hunkered down in Iraq or waking up to no legs in the hospital and hear the guy on the radio calling you names. "Thank for the morale boost, pill popper!"

So, you really are just going with what your handlers say.

He said "phony soldiers," way before he named one.

There are more than one.

Beauchamp and Macbeth are not the only ones. There is a list.

ABC did a story about it. Two days before Rush made his comments.

Drug addicts that get out of a war from a "hereditary anal cyst" forfeit all rights to judge who is or isn't a real soldier.

The leaders of moveon.org's qualification to comment on Petraeus, then, is what?

Who did the Democrats accuse of being a traitor? Or are you conveniently confusing the Democrats with MoveOn?

There is virtually no difference in the Dem Pres candidates and moveon.

If Ann would be the balanced moderate she pretends to be, I'd post on this in her "Rush Limbaugh attacks troops, damages morale thread.

That'd require her to be a braindead moron who doesn't know what she's talking about.

Rush's context was obvious, and was an insult to the troops who disagree with him.

Which makes you not getting it...well, the norm.

Do you even get that calling troops "phonies" and "fakes" is the verbal equivalent of spitting on them?

Fine. Jesse Macbeth, no matter what the courts say, was a real soldier.

Nikolai Stanislofsky: You know what I miss more than anything about being free? Taking a bath. I hate showers. To sit and soak in a hot tub with bubbles everywhere... [says 'amazing' in Russian] Ryan O'Reily: I bet you even had a rubber ducky, huh Nikolai? Nikolai Stanislofsky: Rubber ducky? Ryan O'Reily: Yeah. Nikolai Stanislofsky: What is rubber ducky? Augustus Hill: A product of capitalist imperialism. ( Oz, HBO 1997)

Augustus Hill: You swat at a fly, step on an ant, squash a cockroach, you don't think much of it. In fact, killing a bug gives you a sense of accomplishment. Fucking ant was ruining your picnic, cockroach was crawling through your kitchen cabinets. You put an end to their disgusting, miserable little lives and make a better world for everyone. Only, for every one you kill, more appear. Bigger, uglier, meaner than before. (OZ, HBO 1999)

BTW, since Media Matters likes to cut and paste transcripts, the actual transcript:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?

RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.

CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?

RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.

CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose --

RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you're wrong.

RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.

CALLER: I'm not saying that, I'm not saying anything like that.

RUSH: Of course you are.

CALLER: No, I'm not!

RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let's get out of there and let's be done with it. We won it.

RUSH: I'm never going to be able to retire. It's not going to work. You are depressing me.

CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.

RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you. War is never "plottable" on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.

CALLER: That's true.

RUSH: Thank you. So what's happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can't cave in defeat and run out of there and say, "Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam." We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.

CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it?

RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can't be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.

Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

mikeinsc, don't sweat it. I'm beginning to think our resident lefties have an attention span not significantly longer than that snippet of Rush's show... because if they did they'd include the discussion of fake soldiers from a day or two before, and his recap of it following that phone call.

Since they would never deliberately ignore exculpatory evidence that is staring them right in the face, I must only conclude that they do so due to some sort of mental deficiency.

So in context, what Rush and his caller are saying is that the media doesn't talk to real soldiers when it wants an anti-war quote; it just talks to the fake ones. That claim is objectively false, like a lot of what Rush says on his program. But it isn't an accusation that veterans who oppose the war are phonies. It isn't even a claim that no veterans oppose the war. It is just a claim that the media relies on fake news to undermine the war.

Pinkerton says: You surely don't know more about Kerry's service than I do. As I noted before, the fact that you imply that he was a "phony soldier" suggests that you are stupid, a partisan hack, or both.

I'll leave it to you and others to decide which applies.

Lying about his service, the dates and locations, falsifying reports to obtain medals he didn't earn, lying about the activities that didn't happen when he was there equates him to a phony soldier.

Meeting with representatives of the people that we were a war with, WHILE he was still in uniform makes him a traitor.

Senator Tom Harkin, ironically enough is also a fake soldier, who got caught lying about his service.

Good Times.Any time you meet a payment. - Good Times.Any time you need a friend. - Good Times.Any time you’re out from under.Not getting hassled, not getting hustled.Keepin’ your head above water, Making a wave when you can.

Temporary lay offs. - Good Times.Easy credit rip offs. - Good Times.Scratchin’ and surviving. - Good Times.Hangin in a chow line - Good Times.Ain’t we lucky we got ‘em - Good Times(Good Times 1974)

You are correct sir, my robo quote software malfunctioned. I beg your pardon; I got my Teutonic Temptresses confused. Won't happen again. By the way was it Clarence Thomas or Isaiah Thomas who lost the sex harassment case?

It occurs to me an ignore function might be created for a browser with a little scripting. I found some help but it blocks entire domains. I'll continue looking around later. The thing is, I don't know anything about this, but I find when there's one specific thing to obsess on it inevitably gets fixed. 'View source' shows how clearly "comment-poster" is identified. Should be simple enough to say, "don't display xxxx"

1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION.

Fact. Slavery existed long before the US was a thought in anybody's head. It's still around in Africa today. Hardly American in nature at all.

2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS.

Also true. The number of slaveholders was always quite small. And it was not around a terribly long time.

3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT.

Unpleasant truth --- but a truth nonetheless.

4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.

Shockingly, also true. There is a reason why the North was far more prosperous than the South for so long. It was because they could not rely on agriculture pretty much exclusively to make money and had to try other things that had a much better return.

5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.

Also true. Until the West began to attack slavery, nobody thought anything negatively about it. The US assisted many other countries in rapidly stamping it out. It exists, still, in parts of Africa, but there is only so much we can do.

6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.

Oh, Dust Bunny Queen, you'd better report this to the military immediately. They are still under the impression that he earned those medals. I'm sure your new, secret information will prove very helpful.

Actually, you're analysis just shows that you have no knowledge of history.

Slavery didn't exist long in this country? Oh - just for a few hundred years or so. But if we're mikeinsc, we'll only start counting in 1789, because that's when our country "started". Kind of sucks for the blacks who were enslaved since for the prior two centuries - but MikeinSC doesn't count that.

America rapidly got rid of slavery? Puleeeze. Do some research first - will ya!

But this is kind of funny. Now the Republicans want to rewrite history and say slavery is cool. Go for it. I'm sure it will go over GREAT with the redneck scum.

Gahrie - Are you saying you APPROVE of Clarence Thomas's illegal marriage.

Virginia has made it perfectly clear that they don't approve of jungle love marriages like the one Clarence Thomas has. Black men shouldn't go near our white women, let alone F&CK them.

It's disgusting. And it's immoral. I know, because the Bible says so.

And since when does the Constitution say that black men have a "right" to f&ck our white women? Where does it say that? Please show me.

As for original intent, we know the founders were racists and would not approve (except Jefferson maybe - sinner than he is).

Sorry - but Clarence Thomas wants to regulate my sex life in the privacy of my own home? Well - I have a right to lambast him for undertaking a marriage that would be ILLEGAL were it not for justices who believed in a living Constitution.

Here I stand, the goddess of desire Set men on fire I have this power.Morning, noon, and night, it's dwink and dancingSome quick womancingAnd then a shower.Stage door Johnnies constantly suwwound meThey always hound me, with one wequest.Who can satisfy their lustful habits?I'm not a wabbit.

I love how communists like gahrie and Revenant say it's "racist" to simply want to defend marriage. Marriage, throughout the entire history of the world, in every single culture, has ALWAYS been between people of the same race. How dare they try and redefine such a sensitive and imperilled institution such as marriage.

Sorry, but the only way you have gotten disgusting jungle-love marriages approves is through "activist" courts, via judges who are imposing their leftist and immoral views on the decent and honorable people of this country.

Slavery didn't exist long in this country? Oh - just for a few hundred years or so.

Eighty-nine years, DTL. Our country didn't even exist prior to that, and it is obviously silly to blame the United States for slave policies dictated by the English Parliament and its king, especially when Parliament didn't get around to banning slavery in its colonies until over half a century after the Revolutionary War.

Still, saying that slavery only existed "briefly" in the history of the USA is inaccurate; it existed in parts of America for over a third of our nation's history.

1. odd how easily the racist slurs trip off dtl's tongue, like they were just sitting there, waiting to be used; blaming a Christian straw man serves as a useful foil, but he seems to be enjoying it a bit much. Not troubled at all by his own venom, but rolling in it gratefully, like a pig in his own muck.

2. my favorite part so far was skewering simels with one quick thrust; a direct hit, as evidenced by the juvenile response.

3. cyrus, Kerry isn't your best ally; defending him is without advantage. He served, honorably at first. Questions have been raised about his very brief our and the wounds that won him release and the medals he threw away and the magic hat from his supersecret mission to Cambodia. But do go on. Remember, Kerry is at his core a narcissist, who'd betray you if convenient.

But please - don't use the activist courts to enforce your sexual deviancy onto the rest of this country.

Sorry - but we're not interested in your sex life. So just because you like to F&CK black women, why is that all you can talk about? I don't want to hear about it. Mmmmkay. Please keep your jollies with those black women private, will ya.

Love how Revenant thinks we've only had slavery for 89 years in the United States. Like I said - sucks for those people who were enslaved for the 200 years prior.

I didn't call you a racist. I just pointed out that a person as nutty about racism as you are about homophobia would.

By the way, "original intent" has nothing to do with marriage, as the Constitution neither protects nor restricts marriage in any way. An "original intent" jurist would hold that the states were free to ban interracial marriage if they wanted to -- but none today would, so even in that event Thomas' marriage would still be legal.

Either way, of course, gay marriage is out of luck, since most people don't want it.

While there are many reasons to laugh out loud at Rand's books (some of her fiction dialog imeadiately comes to mind) the fact that she sometimes brilliantly indentified the importance of individual and property rights is NOT one of them - unless of course you have some kind of problem with said rights, or dont believe in them at all :-). Althouse was speaking about Judge Thomas reading Rand and then realising he was hanging out with a bunch of repressive and narrow minded thugs....and I cant find anything at all humorous about that. In fact, His Honor scored a few points with me here today. I will have to buy his book.

Sorry Revenant - but most people don't want interracial marriage. We think that's disgusting. The Bible says so after all. The races are not supposed to mix.

Virginia had a law against interracial marriage. As they should - it's disgusting. And an ACTIVIST Supreme Court overturned that in Loving V. Virginia, where they found a universal "right" to marriage.

Please - show me where there is a "right to marriage" in the Constitution. Which amendment?

If Clarence Thomas would just keep his immoral sex-life private, I'd be fine with it. But instead he has to FLAUNT the fact that he likes to F&ck white women.

Why can't he keep his sex life private? Why does he constantly have to talk about how he F&cks white women by wearing that wedding ring? It's disgusting.

And I'm sure if Clarence Thomas were a justice when Loving V. Virginia was decided, that he would have rightfully voted against it.

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Love how Revenant thinks we've only had slavery for 89 years in the United States. Like I said - sucks for those people who were enslaved for the 200 years prior.

Slavery always sucks, but it is silly to blame it on a country that didn't even exist yet.

It is also silly to say that it existed for "200 years prior". It existed for *thousands* of years prior, in almost every culture in the world, and it still hasn't been completely eradicated. Does slavery only count when the slaveowner is Anglo-Saxon? Although even then, "200 years" would be the wrong figure to use.

Somehow using the word "somehow" 500 times in a row is really bad writing. But hey, it's from a FAMILY MEMBER who has ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY to say any stupid shit they want, so who am I to critique their bad writing?

"Why would we want to? He, unlike the people we've been talking about here, *isn't* a phony soldier."

Nope. But it is fair to call him deluded and wrong, though it does seem like the same people who got their carrion-stained meathooks into Cindy Sheehan got them into Kevin Tillman as well. He mouths the same boilerplate that she did. Think of the vultures that hover around the family of a dead soldier, preying on their anguish and using them to their own nefarious ends to de-legitimize the American military. It makes one shudder.

Apparently, reading is up there with "able to not have your family hate you" in the list of things you're really bad at.

But if we're mikeinsc, we'll only start counting in 1789, because that's when our country "started".

Heck, I'll give you through 1776. Which means 109 years. Hardly a long time considering how long the institution existed/exists.

Kind of sucks for the blacks who were enslaved since for the prior two centuries - but MikeinSC doesn't count that.

Wasn't by the U.S.

Seeing as how, to be technical, we didn't exist.

Virginia has made it perfectly clear that they don't approve of jungle love marriages like the one Clarence Thomas has.

Seeing as how its legal, your desire to enslave blacks again is pretty transparent.

And since when does the Constitution say that black men have a "right" to f&ck our white women?

What's this "our" thing, slappy?

Sorry - but Clarence Thomas wants to regulate my sex life in the privacy of my own home? Well - I have a right to lambast him for undertaking a marriage that would be ILLEGAL were it not for justices who believed in a living Constitution.

So, you want us to make your relationship legitimate while you strive to make interracial marriage illegal? Good plan of action there, sparkles.

Don't try to engage with me, Mary. You've asked me to ignore you in the past, so that's what I'm going to do. I advise you to do the same with me. I'm tired of your sub-high-school tactics; they're frankly boring. But hey, you've almost single-handedly succeeded in making the comments section of Althouse's blog frequently unreadable, so you should be proud.

What’s the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?’ I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I’m a conservative. I’m a texturalist. I’m an originalist. But I’m not a nut.’

What’s the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?’ I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I’m a conservative. I’m a texturalist. I’m an originalist. But I’m not a nut.’

Titus, that's not actually an accurate representation of the context of that quote. It wasn't anything about Thomas. What he said was this:

"I don't think that that's what the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment was. But I'm not going to go back and; it's water over the dam. I do feel bound by Star[e] Decisis ... I'm not going to say that freedom of religion does not have to be under; Federal freedom of religion does not have to be observed by the States. ... I mean, if you took an originalist view it's none of the Federal government's business. It's a matter guaranteed by State Constitutions. But the religion clause did not apply against the States. Originally it clearly didn't. You know, the way it was originally framed is not that the States shall not establish a church but that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

That is, Congress will neither establish nor disestablish religion. And it's hard to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment, by saying due process of law, suddenly sucked that over against the States. It's only since the middle of this Century that we've had any religion clause cases against the States.

You wonder why, you know, why these cases about menorahs and creches and, you know, we never had them because the States were not, until the middle of this Century, bound by those clauses.

Now, am I going to rip all that up? I'm not going to rip all that up. It's water over the dam. The people have gotten used to it. You know, that's what Starry Decisis is all about. In other words, I am an originalist. I am a texturalist. I am not a nut. And you've got to be a nut to try, you know, to rip the whole thing apart. You can't go back that far."

The sugestion that Scalia was talking about Thomas is unfounded; people are inferring from Scalia's remarks and an impression of Thomas' view of stare decisis something Scalia did say, i.e., calling Thomas names. Didn't happen. Do your research.

Well I'll make it simple mikeinsc. You (and Clarence Thomas) use the same Klanish arguments when attacking gay marriage.

But you're completely blind to how viscious and hateful you are when you do that. But just twist the words a little bit, to be anti-black instead of anti-gay, and suddenly you're horrified. As you should be.

That's ok. Your grandchildren will be horrified at the views you currently hold. The comments I've used to attack interracial marriage were commonplace 50 years ago.

And Clarence Thomas' vies on the Constitution are completely at odds with the Loving V. Virginia decision.

Poor President Bush can't get any respect and this from the Murdoch owned NY Post:

NY Post's "Page Six":LEE Iacocca is no fan of President Bush. "I campaigned for him because I knew his mother and dad for 30 years, and I figured he was from pretty good stock," the auto-industry legend tells Details magazine. "But Jeb was being groomed, too. They got the wrong kid. There's something wrong philosophically with how Bush's brain works. I feel sorry for him. I used to think [Al] Gore was nuts in his worrying about global warming, but he was ahead of his time."

Slavery was banned throughout the British Empire in 1833. Sorry - but taking a full generation to ban it in this country is not quick.

Which would be why I said "saying that slavery only existed 'briefly' in the history of the USA is inaccurate".

It was pathetic.

Not at all. It just takes a lot longer to enforce system-wide change in a federal, constitutional system than it does in the Parliament. There are essentially no limits on the power of the Parliament to change the law, which means that the minute the majority decides it wants something, it can get it.

Actually the south loves to hate, hates gays, hates blacks, hates. Pretty soon the republican party will be the party of the south.

Actually the education in the south is quite impressive too. And marriages are really strong in the south-largest states with divorces and out of wed births-but it is the evil northeast that is really ruining this country. Massachusetts lowest divorce rates in the country???? What's wrong with Massachusetts? Someone needs to wright a book about it. Maybe the homosexual who lives up there and recently got married, Arthur Finkelstein, can get the bottom of it. Art Finkelstein, another self hating homo who got married but works for repigs-imagine that.

Jeff Sessions and Saxbly Chambliss are hot though. You know they have strung up a couple of blackies in their day.

Actually the south loves to hate, hates gays, hates blacks, hates. Pretty soon the republican party will be the party of the south.

Amazing. I'm from the South and don't.

Actually the education in the south is quite impressive too. And marriages are really strong in the south-largest states with divorces and out of wed births-but it is the evil northeast that is really ruining this country. Massachusetts lowest divorce rates in the country???? What's wrong with Massachusetts? Someone needs to wright a book about it. Maybe the homosexual who lives up there and recently got married, Arthur Finkelstein, can get the bottom of it. Art Finkelstein, another self hating homo who got married but works for repigs-imagine that.

Wow. So many words. So little cogent thought.-=Mike...loving the hypocrisy of leftists who decry bigotry and prejudice being prejudiced...

Simels, you're never going to live down leaving in a huff and then repeatedly jumping back into the vortex. It's not that you come back that makes you look silly, it's that you promised to go. Admit it: you're hooked.

Yeah, right. Vortex. Like that isn't the most adolescent conceit imaginable.

Of course you oppose interracial marriage. You're from South Carolina after all.

My family doesn't hate me at all. We get along dandy. I just tell them when they're being bigots, because I'm honest.

God help me if I get married. I can't imagine a more tedious, boring life. Have fun breeder. Since you'll never actually accomplish anything or contribute anything to society, you might as well breed those blond Southern boys that I can f&ck when they turn 18.

Which proves that taking a strong stance against the bigots DOES work.

DTL, I realize you've got a whole lot of personality problems, so maybe this really WILL come as a shock to you -- but getting your own mother to like you isn't considered an impressive achievement by normal people. It is probably a little early to declare "Operation Insult the World" a success.